Lost Geographies Of Power By John Allen

The focal issue of this argument is when an Asylum Seeker arrives in Australia without a visa, they are required to stay in detention well beyond the period of time it should take to gather basic information about an asylum claim, health identity or security issues. This can lead to an asylum seeker often being detained for months and sometimes for years. Under the Migration Act (Cth.) 1958 there is no time limit on this detention and only very limited review by the courts is available. The ‘United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty’, rule 11 (b) (UNHCR) considers ‘detention as; confinement within a narrowly bounded or restricted location, where freedom of movement is substantially curtailed, and where the only opportunity

This hinders public access and understanding of their entitled rights by the public. The humanitarian laws on Asylum seekers need to be change with precision and care in order to suit the current situation and protect their rights as it is not respected; in order to uphold Australia’s image as an advanced and democratic nation in this issue. This will give the refugees the rights that they deserve and the “fair go” that embodies our

For many years refugees have been demonized by the country through the spread of fear and misconception. Furthermore, the disgusting treatment of refugees in the detention camps by the Australian Government has been roundly criticised by the international community.

The detention of asylum seekers on offshore islands has becomes central to Australia’s border security program (Dickson, 2015). The offshore detention, processing and resettlement regime branded the ‘Pacific Solution’ was terminated in 2008; it was reconfigured and resurrected in 2013 (Larkin, 2017). Manus Island and Nauru were closed in 2008 by the Australian Labour government, bringing an end to the ‘Pacific Solution,’ the centres were once again used in 2012 to house asylum seekers by the same government that ended the practice years before (Dickson, 2015). The next year, in 2013, the Australian Coalition government made Australia’s asylum policy even sterner, with ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’, which placed all the control of asylum operations in the hands

Sadly, that's the harsh reality for many asylum seekers, seeking refuge in Australia as they are arbitrarily detained. Good morning or afternoon. It has been a profound honour to be invited to address you about the eloquently breach of basic human rights asylum seeker face while being detained in our shores. Mandatory detention should be abolished as it causes indiscriminate health risk. Instead, the Australia government should allow asylum seekers to settle into the community. We should be viewing asylum seekers as a humanitarian issue instead of a political one.

Political unrest and local war happens around the world all the time. Many people live in a dangerous situation and suffered from violence. Hence, large amount of asylum seeker undertakes a huge perilous, try to cross the ocean and arrive Australia. To deal with this issue, Australian government enacted mandatory detention policy and offshore processing policy, these policies become highly contentious in the community with many arguments and criticisms. This report will focus on the nature and purpose of these immigration policies and the impact towards the asylum seeker as well as the criticism form international. To propose some advice about how the future policies should be framed.

In May 2013, the Government made some extension in policy to apply to asylum seekers who arrive by boat anywhere in Australia. Under this system, Asylum seekers who have arrived by boat must be transferred to the third country. Additionally, if these people transferred to third country then their claims of protection will be processed under this country’s law. Reciprocally, if asylum seekers who arrive by boat are allowed by the minister to remain in Australia, then their claims will be processes under Australian law. However, as of June 2013, Australian Government has not yet started processing any claims by asylum seekers, who arrived after 13 August, 2013. This was the step taken by former government maybe under the pressure of its own people who are Australians. As far as Australians are concerned, it is true that Australians are racist and they won’t people of other countries to come and live in their country. Racism can be seen in clubs and pubs where those Australian see other people with angrily and heatedly. Even though, Racism factor is present in Australia; but still it is a beautiful and safe country. Meanwhile, as far as the Australians views are concerned in regarding to asylum seekers who arrive on boats or any other way to

The term ‘illegal immigrants’ is a term used by the media to manipulate public opinion and thereby attempt to change or shape government policy. Asylum seekers are not terrorists wishing to corrupt the Australian way of life, but simply victims of western imperial aggression seeking safety in Australian

Another important stakeholder in this issue is the children themselves. Almost all of the children present in detention centres are asylum seekers whom arrived in Australia by boat, and are classified as ‘unauthorised maritime arrivals’ (Humanrights.gov.au, 2015). These asylum seeker children all held the same responses to some degree. Their responses were all surrounded by the main aspect of ‘Wanting to be free and safe’.

Asylum seekers or refugees have fled their countries’ due to volatile circumstances such as war, or fear of prosecution. Upon arrival in Australia they are moved to detention centres. Detention centres hold people who have come without a visa, any non-national and all unauthorised boat arrivals (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014). These centres hold refugees for indefinite periods and in poor conditions. They are used as a spectacle to represent illegality and a threat to Australian society (Marfleet, 2007, p672).

The piece written by Michael Gordon in The Age on October 19 2011, argues that ten years after the Australian federal election that sparked the asylum seeker controversy, asylum seekers are still being demonised and alienated by both of Australia’s major political parties. Gordon writes in an assertive, controlled and a somewhat concerned tone throughout the article with his target audience aimed at ‘The Age’ readers who have considerable knowledge and understanding of the ongoing debate. Current parliament members from both federal parties could also be his target audience as Gordon provides a solution to the crisis, in that the failure of the Malaysia

The mandatory detention policy in Australia is a legal requirement to detain non-citizens without a valid visa. It was first introduced in 1992 by the Australian Labour Party led by Paul Keating, as a response to the number of boat arrivals seeking asylum in Australia from the aftermath of the Vietnam War. In 1976 to 1981, the first wave of 2000 asylum seekers landed in Australia, where they were sympathetically allowed entrance, followed by a quick grant of a refugee visa status as they were assumed to be ‘genuine refugees’. However, continuous boats arrived been 1989 and 1994 which caused concern within the Australian public as there were issues of increased unemployment (Phillips, 2000).

International law under the 1951 Refugee Convention, permits the right to seek asylum and allocates a responsibility to provide protection for those who lie under the definition of refugee. Since then policies have been modified and used to suit the interests of the government. In particular, the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Act 1999. Authorised the removal of undocumented ships in Australian territory and proclaimed that anyone aboard the ship can be forcibly returned and denied application of asylum. Other legislation, such as the Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1999 makes it illegal for a person to carry people who are not citizens without valid documentation. These policies allow the government to portray itself as strong on border protection and terrorism. This plays well to its core constituencies but is rightly lambasted by human rights organisations and civil liberty groups. Refugees are undocumented people fleeing from their country of origin, so there isn’t a variety of travel options to escape to safety. The policy disclaiming that ‘everyone who lands by boat doesn’t get to stay’ is ignorant to the concept of why people are forced to leave. It’s not a choice to be removed from your country, it's a matter of survival and safety. The core principle of the Refugee convention is that people are not forced to return to a country where they face the threat of persecution or danger.

Asylum seekers in Australia always been the focal point of negative political concern for a long time. To stop asylum seekers continue arriving in Australia by boat, Australia enforces the policy of obligatory detention of asylum seekers, unauthorised asylum seekers arriving by boat will be sent to Papua New Guinea camp where operated by the Australian government (‘Asylum seekers: Australia’s shame’ 2017). However, this policy was reported as disgraceful because of the deficient living condition, indefinite and arbitrary of detention and lack of health care (United Nations 2017). Cohen (2011 p. 242) stated that moral panic could be more likely to develop in anything associated with 'immigration, migrants, multicultural absorption, refugees, border controls and asylum seekers’. Is Australia's response to asylum seekers an example of moral panic? By analysing the five criteria from the moral panic theory by looking at the Australian public reaction to asylum seekers with references support, it could be found that the reaction to asylum seekers in Australia is an example of moral panic.

Refugees, asylum seekers and UASC are terms which are often used interchangeably but have different legal definitions (Ruxton, 1996). For the purpose of this assignment it is important to differentiate between these terms. A refugee is a person "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…" (Article 1 of the United Convention of Human Rights, 1951). An asylum seeker is “a person who has left their country of origin, has applied for recognition as a refugee in